More on Feminists

Reading up on feminism makes me see all the more how absurd this ideology is. It doesn't have any basis on the Bible and it instead destroys the real meaning of what is contained in it to suit the feminist's way of thinking. It is really just a distorted interpretation of Bible since they try to prove that their ideas are actually supported by the Bible. After reading about them, I also slowly get the impression that they actually try to destroy the whole idea of Christianity. It diverts the attention of the people from Jesus Christ who lived as a man in the world and moves toward a feminine god... an idolatrous kind of god defined and sculpted by the feminists. These people also say rhetorics on the "backwardness" of the Church, playing on the ignorance of the greater moajority of Catholics and Christians alike. The Church is dynamic, as seen in the encyclicals constantly being written addressing current needs of the faithful. It cannot be said that it is backward. The feminist also accuse the Church of being stuck with tradition. Anyone here who dare change a 2000-year-old tradition? The feminists are actually the ones who are backward in thinking trying to revive an idea that has been proven wrong. The truth is indestructible. Wrong theories do not stay on long unless supported by human will power. The Church is supported by a Divine will that does not change because it is the most perfect of all and will never change its mind. Anyone who still think "backwardly" and embrace the feminist teachings, let her be open to the TRUTH that is not dependent on man's decisions to make it true. The TRUTH SHALL MAKE US FREE.

OVERPOPULATION

I just attended a talk late this afternoon given by Mr. Manny Arejola, former Director of the Population Committee in the 1970s.. Not sure about the exact date though. He gave a very interesting eyeopener for all of us who were present on the politics behind any "decrease population"-related bills. Let me just give you some highlights his talk. (These information are based on Philippine experience.)

1. The National Statistics Office of the Philippines post that there are 84 Million Filipinos. This includes filipinos living in the Philippines, outside it (which amounts to 7.2 Million all over the world), and IMAGINARY filipinos. The latter were "born" thru the "conception" of some town mayors who "doctor" their population count to increase their "PORK BARREL" or government budget for the town.

2. In reality, if Filipinos were to gather in one place and to be counted exactly, there are only about 62 Million.

3. Population growth rate, the basis of the World Bank and the UN to proclaim that there is a "population explosion", is not exact enough. The PGR includes Filipinos who are outside the country. A better gauge for population growth is the TOTAL FERTILITY RATE (TFR). The TFR measures the number of children per woman. Naturally, only women are capable of giving births. The supposed proposed 2-Child Policy, pushed by Mr. Lagman and cohorts, actually push for a 2% TFR rate (though the bill uses the PGR). The CIA World factbook publishes that the Philippines has a 3.2% TFR rate. This means, an average of 3 children per woman. The Philippines does not need anymore 2-Child policy for this matter if the TFR already is approaching the ideal 2% which they propose.

4. Countries who have promoted population control are definitely very developed countries, but they are slowly becoming extinct. These are Singapore, Netherlands, Ireland, Spain, and others. Their TFR rate is already below the ideal replacement rate of 2%. Soon, there will be no more Irish, Singaporean, Spanish, and perhaps even Americans and British in this world! Now, don't we want that to happen? And only Filipinos will survive and rule the whole world!

5. The US, in 1974, wrote the National Security Study Memorandum 200, crafted by Henry Kissinger. It says, "The President has directed a study of the impact of world population growth on U.S. security and overseas interests." How selfish sounding, huh? At the end, it rectifies though saying that it's really a sincere concern for humanity. Part of this study is America's conditions for funding in the Philippines:
a. Restructure the family - postpone or avoid marriage, and alter image of the ideal family.
b. compulsory (sex) education of all children ages 5 and above.
c. Increase percentage of homosexual unions

6. Manny Arejola also tackeld the issue of contraception since the bill will eventually lead to this. There are no contraceptive pills in the Philippines. There are only abortifacients. And these have grave side-effects on the woman: nausea, itching, vomiting, constant headaches, and deformed children. Oh, by the way, these also tend to increase the estrogen level in the woman so if she ever does give birth, there is a HIGH tendency for a homosexual man. Go figure.

7. There are scientific studies that show a homosexual has a mother who took a contraceptive pill. Most likely.

8. The bill, the media and what-have-you try to convince the population that you are poor because you have a lot of children. WRONG! FALLACIOUS! I know many rich families who have 8 and 12 children. They are rich. There is no logic in this. They try to convince us that having children is a burden. That children means parents have to work really hard so they earn more for the education of their children... how not comfortable for the parents... tsk tsk tsk. Children, what do you think? Are your parents start to think that you are a burden?

9. There is a lot of PROPAGANDA on the population rate, but no propaganda on mortality rate and migration rate. No one tells us, "Hey, there are a lot of people dying, have more children." Or, "Hey, many people are migrating, have more children." There is a focus only on the population increase.

10. Population and poverty are two independent issues which have no correlation whatsoever.

11. The objective of the bill: To improve quality of life of the Filipino family." I wonder how the government will try to quantify quality...

My correspondence with a Feminist

The following is a correspondence between a Feminist and me:


Thanks for the feedback. I think my more than than 30 units of theology, my readings on feminism and my immersion in women's issues can safely guide me in interpreting Card. Ratizinger's letter. I think women have the right to answer BACK. I sure respect your views.- CPDoyo


I wrote:
Dear Ms. Doyo,

Hi! I just want to react on your article last Thursday in the Inquirer. But please consider this email as my personal correspondence with you.

I'm not a theologian, nor a scholar on feminism, but as an humanist myself, but I believe that there is nothing wrong with the document the Cardinal wrote on man and woman. The document is directed to Catholic bishops, and to be interpreted by them for their faithful. As a Catholic, reading a document addressed to Bishops (vis a vis an ecyclical addressed to all Catholics) and interpreting it based on the little theology and doctrine we know about our Catholic faith is, in my opinion, unfair. We (including myself) have to read up on our Catechism and review our Theology if we want to understand and interpret the document that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote. Truly the Cardinal is not a woman to speak for women, but how many times do we women also try to talk for the men? Likewise, we accuse the Church of being patriarchal, and advise men to respect us. I think that one must not necessarily be a woman to speak for a woman.

(The document counters RADICAL feminism ideals.)

Truly, the present Pope who has approved of the document is a humanist (the letter in fact claims in the first lines that the Church is a humanist) and so should we consider him always, giving the letter the benefit of the doubt that it is sincerely humanistic. How do we do this? By reading up. By researching on other articles related to the issue before we allow our emotions to overtake our reasoning.

Here are some articles i suggest we, good Catholic women, should read up on and their links (by the way, these are easy and free ways on "eavesdropping" on the Vatican):

1. Mulieris Dignitatem - http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

2. The Authority of Women by Monica Miller - Here's a good Catholic woman speaking on Feminism - http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0004.html

3. Here's an article on evidences of women's superiority from a Marxist perspective - http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/feminism/fe0003.html

4. Another article by Monica Miller on the false premises of feminists on a patriarchal Church - http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ADAMEVE.TXT

More links on this page to help us understand our Faith's stand on feminism: http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/feminism.asp

I do understand, however, that it can be misleading when the Cardinal wrote that "[feminism] strengthens the idea that liberation of women enatils criticism of Sacred Scripture." Then again, we have to understand that there is a Catholic view of feminism which the Church approves. But we also have to be aware that there are radical views on women which are already "inhuman". I have a friend who went through a stage of being a feminist herself but confessed to me that being bombarded with all the feminist ideals, she realized their absurdity and have gone back to the faith. The human mind knows on its own how to discern what is reasonable and not. Perhaps, we just have to read up on the feminist philosophies at the same time on what our Catholic faith teaches on the dignity of women before we judge which one is right.

The Pope is a "synthesizing" Pope. He knows how to embrace all sorts of philosophies, but only those that are good in them. The Pope was able to find what is good in Kant's philosophy and even quotes him. He is capable of drawing out what is right from what apparently may be wrong. Let us learn from the authentic OPENNESS in which the Pope exemplifies for us. We have to be more open to the Catholic Church rather than seeing her as our lifetime antagonist.

God bless us all.

Sincerely,
Tranquillity

Being Alone and Boyfriends

It's quite a boring weekend I should say. I'm not quite used to being at home on a Saturday, but I guess now I have to learn how to change my lifestyle. Why am I alone? Not that I don't have friends, but I think it's the kind of friends that I have. All of them are not really outgoing people because they are all workaholics! Not that I am not a workaholic and I only want to waste all of my time... A friend of mine commented to me that I better get a boyfriend soon so I can get a LIFE.

Oh well, as if that's easy to get one.

I believe that only 1% of the male (single, that is) population is husband quality. (MEN, comment please.) I am not the kind of woman who would grab the first man who says he likes me for the sake of having a boyfriend and not being alone. I think I'd rather be alone than with someone who embraces me like I was some trophy (or Helen of Troy) to show to the anonymous world. I'd rather be alone than with someone I have to act like his nanny. I may sound like I am a feminist but I'm not. I'm just trying to be a woman...of essence.

To look for or to wait for?

Should women look for their ideal men or wait for them? Quite a difficult question to answer but there is, nevertheless, an answer. Women, at least in my opinion, should wait... and look. We are women. We are not jungle animals who pounce on our prey. Traditionally, men are the ones who choose among the women. Can't force the men to like us because they don't have as much patience (ehem) and maturity (ehem) to be with us. Women have more patience for the men who may come to their lives. To look for them, we, women of character, should also learn how to look. We look for them by choosing the kind of crowd we hang around with. We have to learn also how to choose the place to spend our time.

First Time Blogger

Today I start my blogging. Wasn't really attracted to blog all out my ideas, emotions, and what-have-I's but as days, weeks, months pass, I start feeling this urge to blog! There are things that you can't tell other people (though I can talk about it with God in my prayer) that you actually just want to tell it to yourself again so they make more sense. Anyway, God sees and hears everything. I'll just use technology to help me pray more I guess. Have a hard time talking to statues sometimes and my brain can be just too lazy to activate my imagination... not necessarily the same as creativity.

So I think that blogging will keep the grudge out of myself and into my blogspot. :)

I hope this works.